Merkel reversed course on the UN vote for at least two reasons. First, for four years she has repeatedly requested gestures of goodwill from Netanyahu on the settlement issue - but he has refused. Second, Merkel apparently felt her support was being taken for granted and used as a tool to manipulate other European states on the Palestinian issue.

Der Speigel reported on Monday another possible reason. On the eve of the vote, she received a phone call from Israeli conductor Daniel Barenboim, musical director of the Berlin Opera. Barenboim, known for his severe criticism of Israel's policies in the Palestinian territories, requested that the chancellor not oppose the Palestinian move, and noted that the resolution mentions the two-state solution and Israel's right to exist.

From the start, Netanyahu and Merkel have clashed on the question of settlements. Merkel apparently often felt she was misled by Netanyahu, such as when he leaked specific parts of their conversations and did not fulfill promises on the Palestinian issue.

Merkel is expected to tell Netanyahu that he must choose between promoting the peace process and establishing a Palestinian state, a move that would secure the existence of Israel as a Jewish democratic state, or continue expanding settlements, thus leading to the transformation of Israel into an apartheid state that is isolated internationally.

It has to be stressed that the new plans will kill any chance of a peace process, which means Abbas would make true on his promise - something I read a year or two ago - to dismantle the PA and consider Israel/Pal. as one state, forcing Israel to be in charge of all territories and be responsible for the welfare of all people. It's not something Israel's leaders want, as, in such a case, 10-20 years from now, they'd be forced to share power. Arab population would outgrow the number of Jews.

He later told Israel TV that "it's over" if these two settlements are built.

"Don't talk about peace, don't talk about a two-state solution ... talk about a one-state reality between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean," Erekat said, referring to the land that the international community hopes will one day accommodate both Israel and a Palestinian state.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague sounded a similar warning Tuesday, telling Britain's parliament that Israel's building plans would make a Palestinian state alongside Israel "almost inconceivable."

From Berlin during the cold war to Barçelona in the 70's to Belgrade in the '90s; nothing interests me more than when politics and football come together.

former US manager Bob Bradley is now the manager of Egypt's national team. Here's a great Rolling Stone piece on his tenure during these times:

Port Said had forced Bradley into the wider political spotlight for the first time. Immediately afterwards, recriminations had started to fly. The Muslim Brotherhood-led parliament threatened the military-appointed cabinet with a no-confidence vote. The military, in turn, deflected blame onto smaller fish, including the Egyptian Football Association. Prime Minister Kamal El Ganzouri sacked the EFA’s entire board the next day. When FIFA complained about government interference in the sport, the board ‘resigned.’ (FIFA couldn’t complain if it was the board’s own decision.) Ultras Ahlawy had no doubt who was responsible. Since Ultras groups from different clubs first formed in 2007 – generally dominated by idealistic, well-educated teenagers and early twentysomethings inspired by predecessors in Serbia and Italy – they have repeatedly clashed with security forces.

From the start, the Ultras exploited the relative freedom of football stadiums and the safety of strength in numbers to issue a rare challenge to the Mubarak regime’s stranglehold on public expression. Their favorite acronym, emblazoned on banners and graffiti in stadiums and the sides of buildings, is A.C.A.B. (All Cops Are Bastards). More than anything, the Ultras view themselves as character-shaping organizations, promoting discipline and fraternity, alongside a – violent, at times – rejection of traditional authority. “Revolution is our principle,” Ahmed El Kelaya, a member of Ismailia’s Ultras Yellow Dragons tells Rolling Stone, recounting how they erected a banner of Ché Guevara at the stadium in 2008.

Troy Loney wrote:I'm not sure I understand what this UN disabilities treaty thing is about.

Here's the thing with the treaty. It's already US law... Absolutely no laws would be added or edited in the US and would mainly be to help disability rights in foreign countries, leveling the playing field in business. In other words, US has these regs, which cost money( well worth it, IMO) to protect the disabled(including vets) rights and other countries don't, which has cost benefits for manufacturing. Make everybody follow policies, us business is boosted minimally.

Troy Loney wrote:I'm not sure I understand what this UN disabilities treaty thing is about.

Here's the thing with the treaty. It's already US law... Absolutely no laws would be added or edited in the US and would mainly be to help disability rights in foreign countries, leveling the playing field in business. In other words, US has these regs, which cost money( well worth it, IMO) to protect the disabled(including vets) rights and other countries don't, which has cost benefits for manufacturing. Make everybody follow policies, us business is boosted minimally.

I'm all for the ADA, but I abhor the notion of treaty obligations that get into the domestic functions of another state.

If the signatory nations organically came to pass legislation domestically that mirrored the ADA, fine. But imposing those standards via treaty? Slippery slope that I do not want to contemplate.

GaryRissling wrote:I'm with you. Boehner removing principled republicans from positions of power last week was a sign that big government will be the solution du jour.

I'm not sure how those two are related...

Unbending loyalty to one's principals is OK in theory, but politics is and has always been about compromise.

The current course is unsustainable. We need to cut expenditures. We also need to increase the tax base (ideally through broadening and growth, but an increase none-the-less). If anyone on either side is unilaterally opposed to either of these steps, they need to be removed from the discussion.

The budget "balancing" that will occur due to hitting January 1 (really Dec 21) with no agreement is like going to the hospital and getting your leg cut off because your shoulder hurts.

A 2% reduction in Medicare, 0 reform to Medicaid, and 0 reform to Social Security provide no long-term solutions.

Going over the cliff to make the deficit slightly smaller next year without implementing a fiscally sound strategy is an absurd end to come to. The last thing this country needs is another recession. People will lose their jobs if government cannot perform a basic function over the next two weeks.

GaryRissling wrote:I'm with you. Boehner removing principled republicans from positions of power last week was a sign that big government will be the solution du jour.

I'm not sure how those two are related...

Unbending loyalty to one's principals is OK in theory, but politics is and has always been about compromise.

The current course is unsustainable. We need to cut expenditures. We also need to increase the tax base (ideally through broadening and growth, but an increase none-the-less). If anyone on either side is unilaterally opposed to either of these steps, they need to be removed from the discussion.

There is no other choice.

because Boehner promoted republicans who are in lock-step with leadership to quell dissent. They're going to base a solution off of optimistic growth forecasts, which will result in $0 in actual spending cuts and only a moderately reduced rate in spending increases.

Ultimately, the Republicans aren't substantively any more serious about cutting spending than are Democrats. They just want to spend on different things. So long as Republicans can successfully peddle the myth that the military can fight terrorism, so long as companies like Lockheed Martin are hiring 1,000 sub-contractors (many of whom are patently unqualified for their role) for the most expensive weapons system ever devised and making sure they are in something like 410 of the 438 Congressional districts and all 50 states..... there's just no incentive to cut defense spending. And defense accounts for 1/5 of the federal budget, so if you immediately take 20% of the budget off the table for discussion about cuts, then you can't possibly claim the high ground and chastise the other side for 'not being serious'.

And then look at entitlements..... how much money could be saved by allowing the federal government to negotiate market prices for drugs paid for by MediCare? Al Franken (of all people) authored a bill that would lift the ban on this, but last I heard it stalled in the Senate Finance Committee. Ho hum. That's just one example.

No one wants to be serious about addressing spending. Republicans think simply cutting spending is the key, without any real thought or care given to the end product of the spending. Democrats only want to cut defense, and don't care about the inherent structural problems with things like Social Security.

tifosi77 wrote:Ultimately, the Republicans aren't substantively any more serious about cutting spending than are Democrats. They just want to spend on different things. So long as Republicans can successfully peddle the myth that the military can fight terrorism, so long as companies like Lockheed Martin are hiring 1,000 sub-contractors (many of whom are patently unqualified for their role) for the most expensive weapons system ever devised and making sure they are in something like 410 of the 438 Congressional districts and all 50 states..... there's just no incentive to cut defense spending. And defense accounts for 1/5 of the federal budget, so if you immediately take 20% of the budget off the table for discussion about cuts, then you can't possibly claim the high ground and chastise the other side for 'not being serious'.

And then look at entitlements..... how much money could be saved by allowing the federal government to negotiate market prices for drugs paid for by MediCare? Al Franken (of all people) authored a bill that would lift the ban on this, but last I heard it stalled in the Senate Finance Committee. Ho hum. That's just one example.

No one wants to be serious about addressing spending. Republicans think simply cutting spending is the key, without any real thought or care given to the end product of the spending. Democrats only want to cut defense, and don't care about the inherent structural problems with things like Social Security.

It's enough to make someone feel bad.

No doubt. And the Republicans that are serious are marginalized as the big welfare recipients (big pharma/big agriculture/military/etc) would probably have to scale back their contributions to the party were they ever to actually challenge the status quo.

I don't usually like make posts regarding partisan politics; but what seems to be happening to the few more fiscally conservative republicans over the past few weeks is disturbing in light of our fiscal crises.

DeMint resigns:

DeMint's decision to leave the Senate after only eight years shocked Washington. DeMint had been seen as a future Senate leader for his party and was already a leader to a growing number of conservatives in the House and Senate.

Any infinitesimally small chance a third party has ever had was demolished by the super-pac rules. How would a fiscally conservative third party get campaign financing when Big X would only contribute to the status quo that sustains them?